@inproceedings{shaier-etal-2024-comparing,
title = "Comparing Template-based and Template-free Language Model Probing",
author = "Shaier, Sagi and
Bennett, Kevin and
Hunter, Lawrence and
von der Wense, Katharina",
editor = "Graham, Yvette and
Purver, Matthew",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)",
month = mar,
year = "2024",
address = "St. Julian{'}s, Malta",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2024.eacl-long.46/",
pages = "766--776",
abstract = "The differences between cloze-task language model (LM) probing with 1) expert-made templates and 2) naturally-occurring text have often been overlooked. Here, we evaluate 16 different LMs on 10 probing English datasets {--} 4 template-based and 6 template-free {--} in general and biomedical domains to answer the following research questions: (RQ1) Do model rankings differ between the two approaches? (RQ2) Do models' absolute scores differ between the two approaches? (RQ3) Do the answers to RQ1 and RQ2 differ between general and domain-specific models? Our findings are: 1) Template-free and template-based approaches often rank models differently, except for the top domain- specific models. 2) Scores decrease by up to 42{\%} Acc@1 when comparing parallel template-free and template-based prompts. 3) Perplexity is negatively correlated with accuracy in the template-free approach, but, counter-intuitively, they are positively correlated for template-based probing. 4) Models tend to predict the same answers frequently across prompts for template-based probing, which is less common when employing template-free techniques."
}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="shaier-etal-2024-comparing">
<titleInfo>
<title>Comparing Template-based and Template-free Language Model Probing</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Sagi</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Shaier</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Kevin</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Bennett</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Lawrence</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Hunter</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Katharina</namePart>
<namePart type="family">von der Wense</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2024-03</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Yvette</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Graham</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Matthew</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Purver</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">St. Julian’s, Malta</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>The differences between cloze-task language model (LM) probing with 1) expert-made templates and 2) naturally-occurring text have often been overlooked. Here, we evaluate 16 different LMs on 10 probing English datasets – 4 template-based and 6 template-free – in general and biomedical domains to answer the following research questions: (RQ1) Do model rankings differ between the two approaches? (RQ2) Do models’ absolute scores differ between the two approaches? (RQ3) Do the answers to RQ1 and RQ2 differ between general and domain-specific models? Our findings are: 1) Template-free and template-based approaches often rank models differently, except for the top domain- specific models. 2) Scores decrease by up to 42% Acc@1 when comparing parallel template-free and template-based prompts. 3) Perplexity is negatively correlated with accuracy in the template-free approach, but, counter-intuitively, they are positively correlated for template-based probing. 4) Models tend to predict the same answers frequently across prompts for template-based probing, which is less common when employing template-free techniques.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">shaier-etal-2024-comparing</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2024.eacl-long.46/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2024-03</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>766</start>
<end>776</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Comparing Template-based and Template-free Language Model Probing
%A Shaier, Sagi
%A Bennett, Kevin
%A Hunter, Lawrence
%A von der Wense, Katharina
%Y Graham, Yvette
%Y Purver, Matthew
%S Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
%D 2024
%8 March
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C St. Julian’s, Malta
%F shaier-etal-2024-comparing
%X The differences between cloze-task language model (LM) probing with 1) expert-made templates and 2) naturally-occurring text have often been overlooked. Here, we evaluate 16 different LMs on 10 probing English datasets – 4 template-based and 6 template-free – in general and biomedical domains to answer the following research questions: (RQ1) Do model rankings differ between the two approaches? (RQ2) Do models’ absolute scores differ between the two approaches? (RQ3) Do the answers to RQ1 and RQ2 differ between general and domain-specific models? Our findings are: 1) Template-free and template-based approaches often rank models differently, except for the top domain- specific models. 2) Scores decrease by up to 42% Acc@1 when comparing parallel template-free and template-based prompts. 3) Perplexity is negatively correlated with accuracy in the template-free approach, but, counter-intuitively, they are positively correlated for template-based probing. 4) Models tend to predict the same answers frequently across prompts for template-based probing, which is less common when employing template-free techniques.
%U https://aclanthology.org/2024.eacl-long.46/
%P 766-776
Markdown (Informal)
[Comparing Template-based and Template-free Language Model Probing](https://aclanthology.org/2024.eacl-long.46/) (Shaier et al., EACL 2024)
ACL
- Sagi Shaier, Kevin Bennett, Lawrence Hunter, and Katharina von der Wense. 2024. Comparing Template-based and Template-free Language Model Probing. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 766–776, St. Julian’s, Malta. Association for Computational Linguistics.